I tend to agree with the points made by Guwaya, in that it is true that people have joined and contribute to this discussion group for various reasons.

One such reason is the gaining of knowledge, be it for whatever purpose.

I doubt that anybody has joined and contributes in any attempt to be seen as "expert". I could perhaps be wrong in this opinion, but if there are reputation seekers amongst us, I would need to ask the question of exactly what base are they building their reputation on? An internet discussion group? If I wanted to build a big fat rep, I'd most certainly go about it in a very different way.

But there is another reason for people to belong to, and contribute to this Forum, and that is simply the motivation to spread knowledge to a wider group of people. In earlier days when the world was full of people who read books and magazines this type of person would have regularly published articles in magazines, and perhaps even produced a book or two. In this day and age of the short attention span and the two minute time grab, perhaps a more efficient way to reach people is through the currently more popular medium of the internet.

The problem of covert dealers who milk our membership for information that in future could be used to the membership's disadvantage is a real one, and one that I believe will soon be rectified. The problem is not dealers, but covert dealers and unethical use of information gained in a devious fashion. Any special interest group will contain people who deal --- car clubs, bicycle clubs, rifle clubs, knitting circles, garden clubs, quilting circles --- etc. etc, etc. When people come together because of a common interest it is inevitable that the people who supply the members of that group will also become a part of the group. These dealers are usually welcomed into the group because they are a source of knowledge and they can assist the membership of the group. Where things go bad is when the dealer begins to use the other members of the group as milk cows. Regrettably, this has been happening here.

The books by Tammens and Kerner have been mentioned.

Again I agree with Guwaya that these books contain flaws.

Martin Kerner's work is easy to criticise on some levels, however, he did make one very major contribution to the study of the keris. This contribution is seldom mentioned, and I believe is very rarely understood by people with an interest in the keris.

Why?

Simply because it requires a lot of mental effort for somebody with no understanding of statistics to gain any inkling at all of what Martin Kerner was writing about.

This work is Kerner's statistical analysis of early keris, and I believe that this work is what Martin Kerner will be remembered for.

Ing. Tammens writings also contain flaws, especially in respect of the illogical and utterly incorrect way in which he has used the Javanese tangguh system for his classifications --- as Guwaya has already pointed out.

However, none of us are perfect, and Ing Tammens did provide a very good common reference long before Insiklopedi hit the book stores --- and let us not be of the opinion that Insiklopedi, even though written by a Javanese gentleman and calling upon Javanese resources, is perfect. It is not. There is much incorrect information in this book, and where the information can be accepted as correct, it is correct only as according to one particular school of thought.

Dr. Groneman's writings have also received mention, and it is beyond doubt that his works have very considerable historical value, but again, there are imperfections in his reporting --- which is only to be expected:- we are all human, and mankind does err.

Guwaya mentions the "old books" as the correct and accurate sources for information. I have a very great number of these "old books". Most only date from the period 1900 to 1940. To my way of thinking, this makes them recent books. Not old at all. In these "old books" I find that once again there are variations in opinion, and it seems to me, that often the opinions presented come from a very narrow base of knowledge, even though that base may have been accepted at the time as "traditional".

Then we have the matter of exactly what information one seeks in respect of the keris.

Do we seek names of various types and attributes that will permit a system of classification to be formed?

Do we seek technical knowledge?

Do we seek socio/cultural information?

Exactly what type of information do we seek?

I would suggest that that which is accepted as correct in any of these fields of keris knowledge can be shown to have varied according to time and place, and that no universally acceptable and logically accurate information base has yet been found.

In such an environment, I most humbly suggest that all contributions to the ongoing investigation and discussion of the keris can be considered to have some value.

However, this discourse on motivations for belonging to our discussion group, and motivations in the publication of books is a deviation from the central red vein of this thread.

I have been hoping to see some more opinions in respect of policy changes desired by the membership of this discussion group. Not just comment on those things that some of us may not particularly like, but clearly defined objectives to be achieved by any changes in policy.

Any more input would be most welcome.

How about you, Guwaya?

You are clearly a man with great depth of knowledge in the field of keris study, hence we could be expected to value your opinion.

What would you like to see achieved by any upcoming changes in policy?

I tend to agree with the points made by Guwaya, in that it is true that people have joined and contribute to this discussion group for various reasons.

One such reason is the gaining of knowledge, be it for whatever purpose.

I doubt that anybody has joined and contributes in any attempt to be seen as "expert". I could perhaps be wrong in this opinion, but if there are reputation seekers amongst us, I would need to ask the question of exactly what base are they building their reputation on? An internet discussion group? If I wanted to build a big fat rep, I'd most certainly go about it in a very different way.

But there is another reason for people to belong to, and contribute to this Forum, and that is simply the motivation to spread knowledge to a wider group of people. In earlier days when the world was full of people who read books and magazines this type of person would have regularly published articles in magazines, and perhaps even produced a book or two. In this day and age of the short attention span and the two minute time grab, perhaps a more efficient way to reach people is through the currently more popular medium of the internet.

The problem of covert dealers who milk our membership for information that in future could be used to the membership's disadvantage is a real one, and one that I believe will soon be rectified. The problem is not dealers, but covert dealers and unethical use of information gained in a devious fashion. Any special interest group will contain people who deal --- car clubs, bicycle clubs, rifle clubs, knitting circles, garden clubs, quilting circles --- etc. etc, etc. When people come together because of a common interest it is inevitable that the people who supply the members of that group will also become a part of the group. These dealers are usually welcomed into the group because they are a source of knowledge and they can assist the membership of the group. Where things go bad is when the dealer begins to use the other members of the group as milk cows. Regrettably, this has been happening here.

The books by Tammens and Kerner have been mentioned.

Again I agree with Guwaya that these books contain flaws.

Martin Kerner's work is easy to criticise on some levels, however, he did make one very major contribution to the study of the keris. This contribution is seldom mentioned, and I believe is very rarely understood by people with an interest in the keris.

Why?

Simply because it requires a lot of mental effort for somebody with no understanding of statistics to gain any inkling at all of what Martin Kerner was writing about.

This work is Kerner's statistical analysis of early keris, and I believe that this work is what Martin Kerner will be remembered for.

Ing. Tammens writings also contain flaws, especially in respect of the illogical and utterly incorrect way in which he has used the Javanese tangguh system for his classifications --- as Guwaya has already pointed out.

However, none of us are perfect, and Ing Tammens did provide a very good common reference long before Insiklopedi hit the book stores --- and let us not be of the opinion that Insiklopedi, even though written by a Javanese gentleman and calling upon Javanese resources, is perfect. It is not. There is much incorrect information in this book, and where the information can be accepted as correct, it is correct only as according to one particular school of thought.

Dr. Groneman's writings have also received mention, and it is beyond doubt that his works have very considerable historical value, but again, there are imperfections in his reporting --- which is only to be expected:- we are all human, and mankind does err.

Guwaya mentions the "old books" as the correct and accurate sources for information. I have a very great number of these "old books". Most only date from the period 1900 to 1940. To my way of thinking, this makes them recent books. Not old at all. In these "old books" I find that once again there are variations in opinion, and it seems to me, that often the opinions presented come from a very narrow base of knowledge, even though that base may have been accepted at the time as "traditional".

Then we have the matter of exactly what information one seeks in respect of the keris.

Do we seek names of various types and attributes that will permit a system of classification to be formed?

Do we seek technical knowledge?

Do we seek socio/cultural information?

Exactly what type of information do we seek?

I would suggest that that which is accepted as correct in any of these fields of keris knowledge can be shown to have varied according to time and place, and that no universally acceptable and logically accurate information base has yet been found.

In such an environment, I most humbly suggest that all contributions to the ongoing investigation and discussion of the keris can be considered to have some value.

However, this discourse on motivations for belonging to our discussion group, and motivations in the publication of books is a deviation from the central red vein of this thread.

I have been hoping to see some more opinions in respect of policy changes desired by the membership of this discussion group. Not just comment on those things that some of us may not particularly like, but clearly defined objectives to be achieved by any changes in policy.

Any more input would be most welcome.

How about you, Guwaya?

You are clearly a man with great depth of knowledge in the field of keris study, hence we could be expected to value your opinion.

What would you like to see achieved by any upcoming changes in policy?

What would you like to see achieved by any upcoming changes in policy?

Hello to the forum,

as feeling a little bit forced to react I try to give a quick answer.

But before I start I attach importance to the following:

1. I don't have anything against dealers - how ever big they might be as far as they act in an ethical consens. But I have something against dealers who don't!

2. It was never my aim to derigate the merit of Tammens or Kerner - they just had to hold their head for as a sample as there are so many other ugly ones.

To the statistic somewhen later as I don't have the script actually with me but if I remember right there is a big fault included.

I naturally know that nobody is perfect an we all make mistakes!

Now to the provocated statement to "what I would like to see achieved by upcomming changes in policy".

As you know I am a new member of this forum and not familar with the still presently existing policy - just with the actual discussed here. So my statement will be reduced upon this point and it will be more a short essay than - as whised - a definite proposal how to restrict those unethical behaviours of some members - as I already wrote before: me myself, I don't know! Hence the statement is just to see as a thought-provoking impulse and hopefully not too disapointing and boaring for the exceptions of some forum members.

Last but not least I please everybody to take into his considerations that English is not my mother-language.

The main point of my advisement is the ETHICAL AWARNESS AND BEHAVIOR of members using the forum under the aspect of using informtions received from the forum for personal advantages.

Under his view I distinguish 3 grups of sellers:

A) the ones who already have an ethic awarness;

B) the ones who don't have an ethic awarness as money is their highest god;

C) the collectors (and hobby sellers) who bought an item from which they don't know if it is good or not and give this to discuss to the forum. Receiving a negative feedback they try to sell the item with the purpose to receive their "lost" money back but without giving the at the forum received informations further to the potential buyers. Reffering to Alans terminolgy also could be said: they are not willing to pay the "kindergarten"-fee for their education.

The outcome of this:

- Group A is no problem as they have the right ethical awarness;

- Group B doesn't have an ethical awarness and will with the utmost probability not change their behaviour;

- Grup C includes members who it is essential to achieve. Their ethical behaviour is not lost but there is a danger that it will. Once adepted how easy it can be to cheat people the danger is great to glide into the behaviour of Group B.

So the assignment is to try to keep away these persons from gliding down into Group B and to sharpen their ethical awarness.

How can this be done? I also don't have a recipe for it. I just remain of the conviction that prohibitions and restrictions don't help. (The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders!).

I think the only way is the power of persuasion. It is impossible for me now and here to give definite practical proposals how to handle it, hence I have a problem how to fix changes into the upcomming policy.

I only see that the ethical code is the most important one (for me) which not to receive with restrictions. The ethical code has to be present all the time and hence has to stand as the BASIC PRINCIPLE at the beginning of a policy - before anything else.

Also the way David acted shortly ago is a way without restrictions to reach this aim - bikin orang malu - make people ashamed and they probably will not do it again and it is also a practical lesson for potential others.

But for this people have to watch and act like this (as David did) if they getting aware a wrong ethical behaviour and not contain oneself under the wrong aspect of betraying somebody.

The advantage is that the person who acted wrong has the possibilty to come back to the forum (the door is open). He probably will not act in this way again and for potential copycats it is a warning. Group B is anyway lost and with or without restriction they will find ways.

I am soory that I cannot make any definite proposal how to restrict those unethical behaviours of some members - but it is as it is.

Thanks Guawya, i think you make some good points and observations, perhaps the most important of which is the following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guwaya

I only see that the ethical code is the most important one (for me) which not to receive with restrictions. The ethical code has to be present all the time and hence has to stand as the BASIC PRINCIPLE at the beginning of a policy - before anything else.

Still, while i agree that the death penalty does not discourage murder (and i am not a proponent of it) i am still in favor of sticking convicted murders in jail for the rest of their lives (or at least until some DNA evidence proves their innocence). We must find a way to encourage and nurture ethical behavior, but we still cannot allow transgressors to take advantage of out tolerance and walk all over us. So in the end, like it or nor, new regulation is on the way. I am hoping that it will not be over-bearing and restrictive, but since, as you say, Group B is not likely to respond to our "Ethics by Example" methods we simply must create some new rules that make it more difficult for them to operate among us.
If you would like to learn more about what forum rules are already in place you will find "sticky" (meaning they don't move) threads at the top of each forum explain them.

[QUOTE=David]So in the end, like it or nor, new regulation is on the way. I am hoping that it will not be over-bearing and restrictive, but since, as you say, Group B is not likely to respond to our "Ethics by Example" methods we simply must create some new rules that make it more difficult for them to operate among us.[QUOTE]

How we deal with Group B. will fall under 'Moderator's Discretion' ; in other words; get caught and you are gone .

We sincerely hope that our Warung members will be pro-active in helping to maintain the standards we all strive for .

What would you like to see achieved by any upcoming changes in policy?

My question above seems to have been misunderstood.

I was not asking for solutions, or ways in which to achieve some outcome or another, but only what we would like that outcome to be.

The means by which it might be achieved remains the responsibility of site management.

As an example, my wife could ask me:-

"what would you like to eat for dinner?"

my answer could be:-

"chickpea curry and rice"

how that chickpea curry and rice finds its way to the table in front of me is not my problem :- that problem of producing chickpea curry and rice is exclusively the province of my wife.

Similarly with this matter currently before us, we do not need to suggest the ways in which outcomes might be achieved, all we need to do is to suggest what we would like to see achieved. Site management will provide the means by which the outcomes may be achieved.

Guwaya:-

To the statistic somewhen later as I don't have the script actually with me but if I remember right there is a big fault included.

Do you mean Martin Kerner's statistical analysis contains error?

I could not find that error. I would be very grateful if when you have the text of his work at hand, you could direct me to the erroneous section.

However, even though his actual statistical work may be accurate, his conclusions are less than adequate, most particularly his conclusions drawn from a complete misunderstanding of both cultural and technological bases.

This is an important thread and one which should enhance the value of the warung. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of promoting ethical behaviour and as Alan Maisey has said using the utilitarian approach is probably the most functional in this circumstance. Promoting ethical behaviour is one thing, having all the members of the warung do so is another.

If I might offer a few thoughts .
In the code of conduct points #5

Quote:

Do not engage in any commercially oriented behavior

and #7

Quote:

Behave in a respectful manner towards other members, and their opinions

are particularly pertinent in this discussion. Point #5 is fairly obvious, point #7 is asking us not to treat our fellow warung members badly, that includes deceiving them as to the true purpose of our questions, and using their information for our own commercial gain without their express permission. I think it might be a good idea that all new members (and quite possibly all existing members) be asked to confirm that they have read and accept the code of conduct of the warung before being allowed to post. Secondly I think that a moratorium period between being accepted as a member and being allowed to post (2-4 weeks) might disuade opportunistic behaviour. Finally I believe any changes decided on as a result of this thread should be made to allow the warung to improve its role as an educational and sharing group and enhance the ability of the moderators to avoid exploitation of the group.
David

I think it might be a good idea that all new members (and quite possibly all existing members) be asked to confirm that they have read and accept the code of conduct of the warung before being allowed to post.

As I stated back in post # 62, I believe any change of the forum rules must start at the registration level. A carefully written questionere followed by a statement and a simple check on either I agree or I disagree to the forum rules, will go a long way dealing with the Group B potential members.

This would also allow the moderators to act swiftly in the event the rules are violated.

But I will of cause leave any ruling to our very capable moderators, and please consider this just a suggestion.

Thanks Guawya, i think you make some good points and observations, perhaps the most important of which is the following.

Still, while i agree that the death penalty does not discourage murder (and i am not a proponent of it) i am still in favor of sticking convicted murders in jail for the rest of their lives (or at least until some DNA evidence proves their innocence). We must find a way to encourage and nurture ethical behavior, but we still cannot allow transgressors to take advantage of out tolerance and walk all over us. So in the end, like it or nor, new regulation is on the way. I am hoping that it will not be over-bearing and restrictive, but since, as you say, Group B is not likely to respond to our "Ethics by Example" methods we simply must create some new rules that make it more difficult for them to operate among us.
If you would like to learn more about what forum rules are already in place you will find "sticky" (meaning they don't move) threads at the top of each forum explain them.

What a lot of feebacks - never thought!
I aggree with you David and it seems that I have to be more careful in the choice of my words or formulatings I use - but sometimes I like to overstretch formulations to shorten the way.

Naturally offences have to have consistencies and in the case of my so-called group B I follow Rick : "get caught and you are gone."

My sampe with the death penalty is more to see under the aspect: 'bad boys will not become good boys' through laws and that more important is the promotion of ethical behaviour and as a practical appliance I only can support drdavid's made proposals (see: #100).

Finally I would like to add a citate made by Rick:
"We sincerely hope that our Warung members will be pro-active in helping to maintain the standards we all strive for . "

I am talking about only the statistical work, not the conclusions that Martin Kerner drew from that work.

I am not a mathematician, so I had Martin Kerner's compilations and calculations reviewed by a mathematician some years ago, and it was given a clean bill of health by this person. In fact, I would have been surprised if his calculations had been incorrect, as I understand that in his professional life he was either a statistician or mathematician who had been in charge of the Swiss govt. organisation responsible for Swiss weights and measures.

However, I will welcome any identification of error that you can point out in Martin Kerner's statistical work, as in my opinion this analysis is too important to be tainted by error, and your identification of this error will permit us to carry out the necessary corrections.

As I have noted in an earlier entry I deal.
How would it be clearly proposed that if I for example presented a kris for comment and discussion and then found something more personal to me and wished to sell this Kris to buy what I desired more....By what approach would be considered suitable by staff to sell this Kris now? Would if be in the form of a public announcement or a case of tough love mate, wait the 3 months or be booted? Or would it be recommended that I don't show and tell Keris at all so the motions do not have to be actioned thus depriving the forum of somethings that may never be seen otherwise???

How would it be clearly proposed that if I for example presented a kris for comment and discussion and then found something more personal to me and wished to sell this Kris to buy what I desired more....By what approach would be considered suitable by staff to sell this Kris now? Would if be in the form of a public announcement or a case of tough love mate, wait the 3 months or be booted? Or would it be recommended that I don't show and tell Keris at all so the motions do not have to be actioned thus depriving the forum of somethings that may never be seen otherwise???

We are still working out the details Gav, but first of all, the moratorium on sale will only apply to the Swap forum. We cannot keep you from selling your keris on your website, eBay or anywhere else. You won't be able to make a link to your sale in the Swap, but other venues of sale will remain open to you.
We can and will ask that you don't use statements made by members here to support your sale at these other sites without the express permission of those members.
I also doubt that the time frame will be anywhere near as long as 90 days.
I think we will ask that if you do put something up for sale somewhere that has been discussed on the forum that you alert the moderators first so that we can lock that thread since we cannot have discussion of items that are currently up for sale.

I also doubt that the time frame will be anywhere near as long as 90 days.
I think we will ask that if you do put something up for sale somewhere that has been discussed on the forum that you alert the moderators first so that we can lock that thread since we cannot have discussion of items that are currently up for sale.

Thank you David, thank you Rick.

A quick question as I cannot see it in the sticky, the question of "for sale" items not being discussed. I thought this was the case but I can only see reference to live auctions noted in the sticky, can you point me to the straight "For sale" quotes.

Thanks

Gav

Edit; I have read the whole sticky again and I see the second last post by Lee mentions it very quickly, perhaps it can be more clearly noted, I am sure moderators can edit any post from any time.

As I stated back in post # 62, I believe any change of the forum rules must start at the registration level. A carefully written questionere followed by a statement and a simple check on either I agree or I disagree to the forum rules, will go a long way dealing with the Group B potential members.

This would also allow the moderators to act swiftly in the event the rules are violated.

But I will of cause leave any ruling to our very capable moderators, and please consider this just a suggestion.

Hello to the Forum,

As I just saw that member brekele is offering a formerly here presentet keris sundang parallel at the swap forum and at ebay - there two other keris with less informations - I would like to support the here made proposals from Naga Sasra, as I also think it has to start with the registration process.

I also think it would be a good ides to make a brief describing of someone's interests in following the forum compulsive - together with the from Naga Sasra proposed questionaries. But this also Naga Sasra already stated.

Anyway - this practise would mean to invest some time in the beginning, a kind of giving and not just taking.

I've been reading this thread with great interest.I am a keris collector,not a dealer although I am mindful of values and asking prices.
I agree with the words in #5,"do not engage in commercially orientated behavior" and 7 'behave in a respectful manner towards other members and their opinions".

I have been collecting antique arms edged weapons for many years,even before the internet and ebay.These are wonderful tools,eg this site exists and is used.However I agree with Alan Maisey's comments on identifying and buying items from internet photos.I don't,and I've read many comments and complaints in magazines and websites from people who are dissatisfied after buying off the net.

In a perfect world we wouldn't be concerned about "covert dealers" etc,but it's not a perfect world.In past years I've believed stories about "rare finds" and provenance,bought something, only to find out later,sometimes several years later that the stories weren't true.In response to queries to dealers I've been told that"Oh,I believed him".

As to options on policy changes:
1 I agree that dealers should be open and transperent,and presume this would be at the initial registration process.Then if there is a problem,their access can be blocked,and perhaps the Forum could have a list of delinquent members.

2Dealers could lodge a deposit which could be forfeited.

3 The Forum could endeavour to organise a return & refund system.Although I appreciate this would be very difficult due to the international nature of the Forum and it's members.

The Forum is successful,it does have a good reputation.I've thought about how the international auction houses build and maintain reputations.Good quality catalogues electronic and paper,eg Herman Historica,who sometimes list keris,Fischers in Luzern,Sothebies & Christies,Bonhams etc.These houses also have carefully set out terms & conditions which include a right of return and refund.Of course they charge fees to the vendor and purchaser.Can similar terms be applied here?

There has been embarasment when auction house have been "outed",and this will affect their business.
This may be difficult due to the international character of the internet,as an item can be listed anywhere in the world,and be available instantly to the world,without being inspected by a representative of the Forum.

Does the Forum want to accept the responsibility of being a "dealer",probably not.
Does this lead to the conclusion that we as members have to be "self regulating", yes I think it does.

I joined to learn,and gather info.The photos and illustrations are very helpful,so are the commentaries.I acknowledge that it is up to me to accept the quality or value of comments.

I wish I had seen this thread earlier before crossing a few lines. However that are what, about 72 posts on three pages? Many have conflicting opinions and ideas.

I appreciate several of the admins trying to keep each of us in line, even when this line is a bit muddy. But the main points are very clear!

I am a collector of artifacts from many cultures.

I have never sold, nor intending to EVER sell any of my Indonesian artifacts!

I do not have any special knowledge about the finer points, dha, tangguh, pamor, dapor, etc. I like to learn and solicit opinions about symbolism and the mechanical techniques in the creating of Keris. If I do not understand a remark, I will respectfully ask for clarification. I have not the slightest in arguing.

My personal bent is to walk away from arguments and find interest somewhere else. My concept is that being "against" someone or concept is as close as you can get! Think the word "against." It is about as close as you can be!

My interest is in the symbolism, the sociology, the reason behind the Keris, in this effect, I am not even trying to act like a Javanese connoisseur. In Java they can do as they want privacy. Hide the blade. Whatever.

My keris are now American, no longer bound by Javanese rules. I will display the entire blade and ask for opinions. I feel that both myself and others can benefit from these images, and I want to learn.

I have known some fine teachers on the Forum. Fine dealers. I will do my very best not to expose them as their privacy demands for themselves and their wares.

I am a guest in this Home. I am trying to sift few the rules and lines that cannot be crossed. As a guest, I firmly want to respect the Forum rules and ethics.

I ask for any PM messages if I am in the slightest area outside the rules. I have read and appreciated PM comments to me and I am trying to live by them.